Student Government Association Elections Committee v. Mollozi-White

Facts of the Case:

On April 8, 2011, a complaint regarding a grievance of the 2010 Election Bylaws was brought to the Elections Committee Chair, Sarah Carty, involving candidate Rachel Mollozzi. The complaint states that on April 8, 2011, between 12 and 1PM, Mollozzi broke elections bylaws Article IV, Section A, Subsection 2, by verbally harassing Margaret Hale in the middle lobby of the Powell Building. The Elections Committee and Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko met to discuss the complaint against Mollozzi. A unanimous vote was reached among the Elections Committee and the Ethics Administrator to force Mollozzi to write a 250-word letter of apology to be submitted by 6PM on April 12, and she cannot actively campaign between 11AM and 4PM on April 12, 2011.

On April 11, 2011, Mollozzi and White filed a request for a Student Court hearing, seeking to invalidate the second part of the Elections Committee’s decision because the ruling is uncalled for and unnecessary. It is further their position that “this ruling will set precedent in the future that anyone can go and file a complaint against the slate for just campaigning.” They also believed that their first amendment rights were being infringed upon, “as they are being punished for just speaking with someone and second in that Rachel is not able to speak her will until 11-4 on Election Day about the campaign.”

Question:

Does prevention of campaigning at a certain time infringement upon the first amendment rights of SGA candidates and is it a valid punishment, therefore?

Answer:

In a unanimous decision by the Student Court, although Mollozzi did indeed violate the bylaws, it was ruled that the punishment by the Elections Committee to restrict Mollozzi from campaigning was unjust based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Student Court held that the bylaws in this regard were far too vague and, as such, needed to be changed. However, the Court upheld that the punishment of no campaigning did not infringe upon first amendment rights, as candidates signed a contract to campaign which relinquished their first amendment rights.